CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 6 décembre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA04AE28A { width:35.22pt; display:inline-block } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s201FBFFF { width:299.57pt; display:inline-block } .sD472578 { width:317.57pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s938C1CCA { padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   933   6.12.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENTS CONCERNING Greece, Italy and Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 41 Chamber judgments, none of which is final [1] :   SECTION 1   (1) Yagtzilar and others v. Greece (application no. 41727/98)                     Violation Article 6 & Article 1 Protocol No. 1   The ten applicants, all Turkish nationals, are former owners of an olive plantation in Chalkidikì, Northern Greece, which was taken over by Greece in 1925 in order to accommodate refugees from Asia Minor. Expropriation of the plantation was declared in 1933 and the procedure to allocate compensation began in December 1933. The Greek courts rejected several times the Government’s submission that the applicants’ compensation claim was out of time. However, on 17 July 1995 the Court of Appeal found that their claim had been out of time since at least 1971. The proceedings ended on 15 July 1997 with a judgment from the Court of Cassation confirming the Court of Appeal judgment. The applicants received no compensation.   They complained about the excessive length of the proceedings, which lasted over 63 years, of which the European Court of Human Rights could take into account [2] nine years and 16 days. They also maintained that, by deciding that their right to compensation was out of time, the Greek courts deprived them of their right to access to a court and of their right to property. Before the European Court of Human Rights, they claim 31,849,244,217 Greek drachmas (GRD) plus GRD 33,896,889,841 in interest for pecuniary damage and GRD 157,754,000 for costs and expenses.   The Court noted, among other things, that the Greek courts decided that the claim for compensation was out of time at an advanced stage of the proceedings, which the applicants had pursued diligently and in good faith. The Court also found that the Greek Government had not explained in a convincing manner why the applicants had received no compensation.   The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights, both concerning the right of access to a court and the length of the proceedings. The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) of the Convention and reserved the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) to a later date. (The judgment is available only in French.)   (2)     Tsironis v. Greece (no. 44584/98)               Violation Article 6 & Article 1 Protocol No. 1   Vasilios Tsironis, a Greek national, took out a loan with a bank to build and use a greenhouse on a piece of land he owned. In September 1989 the bank requested that he repay the loan and interest due and informed him that it would seize his property. Despite reaching an agreement with the bank to repay his debt, which was confirmed on 31 January 1991, on 24 May 1991 the bank took steps to sell the land and greenhouse at public auction. Notification of the pending sale did not reach the applicant, although he had left his address with the police and the contact details for his employer were known to his creditors. The sale went ahead without his knowledge.   On 13 December 1991 he started proceedings to have the auction sale annulled, but his application was rejected as being out of time. His appeals against this decision with the Greek courts were unsuccessful.   The applicant complained that he did not have access to a court nor an effective remedy to contest the sale of his property.   The European Court of Human Rights observed, among other things, that the time limit for objecting to the decision in question   - as laid down in the Greek Code of Civil Procedure - presupposed that those concerned were aware that a decision had been taken. However, the applicant was unaware of the pending sale, given the insufficient efforts of the competent authorities to inform him. In addition, he could have had no reason to suppose that a sale was imminent, having only recently come to an agreement with his bank.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 and of Article 1 of   Protocol No. 1 and awarded the applicant GRD 6,000,000 for damages and GRD 2,000,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     SECTION 3   In the following thirty-eight Italian cases, the applicants complained about the length of the civil proceedings (indicated in brackets) to which they were parties. They relied on Article 6 § 1, claiming their civil rights had not been decided within a reasonable time.     No violation of Article 6 § 1 In Gemignani v. Italy the Court held by four votes to three that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.     Violation of Article 6 § 1 In the remaining 37 cases the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded the following amounts to each applicant in Euro (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses (The judgments are available only in French).     non-pecuniary damage costs and expenses (3)     Troiani v. Italy (no. 41221/98) (a little more than 13 years and nine months for seven levels of jurisdiction) - - (4)     Gattuso v. Italy (no. 44342/98) (more than 11 years and six months) EUR 11,000 EUR 1,500 (5)     Caracciolo v. Italy (no. 44382/98) (more than four years and eight months) EUR 2,000 - (6)     Murru v. Italy (no. 4) (no. 44386/98) (more than nine years and 11 months) EUR 12,000 EUR 500 (7)     Besati v. Italy (no. 44388/98) (11 years for two levels of jurisdiction and still pending on 6 December 2001) EUR 12,000 EUR 120 (8)     Mauti v. Italy (no. 44391/98) (more than 23 years and 10 months and still pending on 24 August 2001) EUR 40,000 EUR 2,500 (9)     Fiorenza v. Italy (no. 44393/98) (more than seven years and eight months and still pending on 6 December 2001) EUR 6,000 EUR 1,000 (10)     Cartoleria Poddighe s.n.c. v. Italy (no. 44399/68) (19 years) EUR 30,000 EUR 360 (11)     Silvestri v. Italy (no. 44400/98) (approximately eight years and four months) EUR 10,000 EUR 2,000 (12)     Ferraresi v. Italy (no. 44405/98) (more than 15 years and still pending on 6 December 2001) EUR 24,000 EUR 500 (13)     Delmonte and Badano v. Italy (nos. 44408/98 and 48525/99) (nine years and eight months) EUR 14,000   EUR 1,500 to the first applicant and EUR 750 to each of the other two (14)     Centi v. Italy (no 1) (no. 44429/98) (approximately 10 years and two months) EUR 14,000 EUR 500 (15)     Grassi v. Italy (no. 44430/98) (eight years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction and still pending on 24 February 2001) EUR 7,000 EUR 2,500 (16)     Centi v. Italy (no 2) (no. 44432/98) (more than seven years and five months) EUR 8,000 EUR 500 (17)     Bagnetti and Bellini v. Italy (no. 44433/98) (more than 10 years and seven months) EUR 14,000   EUR 50   (18)     Gemignani v. Italy (no. 47772/99) (more than three years and seven months) no violation of Article 6 § 1 (19)     C.A.I.F. v. Italy (no. 49302/99) (more than 20 years and nine months for six levels of jurisdiction) EUR 22,000 - (20)     Grisi v. Italy (no. 49303/99) (more than six years and three months) EUR 6,000 - (21)     Gatto v. Italy (no. 49304/99) (more than 11 years and four months and still pending on 23 October 2001) EUR 16,000 EUR 2,500 (22)     M.I. and E.I. v. Italy (no. 49305/99) (almost seven years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction) EUR 6,000 EUR 1,000   (23)     Servillo and D'Ambrosio v. Italy (no. 49306/99) (approximately eight years and five months) EUR 10,000   EUR 750   (24)     D’Amore v. Italy (no. 49307/99) (more than nine years and eight months) EUR 10,000 EUR 1,500 (25)     Grimaldi v. Italy (no. 49308/99) (almost 10 years and nine months and still pending on 6 December 2001) EUR 14,000 EUR 1,500 (26)     Crotti v. Italy (no. 49309/99) (more than six years and six months and still pending on 9 September 2001) EUR 4,600 EUR 2,000 (27)     Palumbo v. Italy (no. 49310/99) (almost nine years and 10 months and still pending on 2 October 2001) EUR 12,000 EUR 1,500 (28)     Mezzena v. Italy (no. 49311/99) (six years and nine months and still pending on 5 October 2001) EUR 5,100 - (29)     Provide S.r.l.   v. Italy (no. 49312/99) (more than four years and five months) EUR 3,000 EUR 1,500 (30)     Bonacci and others v. Italy (no. 49313/99) (almost 14 years and eight months for four levels of jurisdiction and still pending on 6 December 2001) EUR 10,000 EUR 150   (31)     Steiner and   Hassid   Steiner v. Italy (no. 49314/99) (more than seven years and one month and still pending on 6 December 2001) EUR 6,000   EUR 1000   (32)     Bazzoni v. Italy (no. 49315/99) (more than seven years and five months) EUR 8,000 EUR 2,000 (33)     Albertosi v. Italy (no. 49316/99) (more than six years and nine months) EUR 4,000 EUR 500 (34)     Filosa v. Italy (no. 49317/99) (more than seven years and nine months and still pending on 6 September 2001) EUR 8,000 EUR 1,500 (35)     D’Arrigo v. Italy (no. 49318/99) (more than 10 years and one month for three levels of jurisdiction) EUR 6,000 EUR 1,500 (36)     Capri v. Italy (no. 49319/99) (more than four years and 10 months) EUR 6,000 - (37)     Onori v. Italy (no. 49320/99) (more than 11 years and four months) EUR 14,000 - (38)     Guarnieri v. Italy (no. 49321/99) (more than 10 years and seven months) EUR 14,000 - (39)     Mazzacchera v. Italy (no. 49322/99) (more than 11 years and one month for two levels of jurisdiction and still pending on 1 March 2001) EUR 14,000 EUR 2,000 (40)     Pedà v. Italy (no. 49396/99) (more than seven years) EUR 8,000 EUR 1,500     (41)     Martins Serra and Andrade Câncio v. Portugal (no. 43999/98)     Violation Article 6 § 1 Eusébio Martins Serra and Rogério Andrade Câncio are two Portuguese nationals born in 1962 and 1984 respectively who live in Hudson, Massachusetts, USA. They complained, relying on Article 6 § 1, about the length of civil proceedings (started on 13 July 1992 and still pending on 6 December 2001) concerning a traffic accident in which they were involved.   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded each applicant 1,300,000 Portuguese escudos (PTE) for non-pecuniary damage and a global sum of PTE 300,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] From 20 November 1985, when Greece recognised the right of individual petition.